You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Victorian poverty
November 24 2024 1.49am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Victorian poverty

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

  

chris123 Flag hove actually 05 Apr 15 7.51pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Y Ddraig Goch Flag In The Crowd 05 Apr 15 8.29pm Send a Private Message to Y Ddraig Goch Add Y Ddraig Goch as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?

Some people do struggle yes. In a way it should be so I.e. Anyone on long term benefits should struggle. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to afford food but equally it doesn't mean that they should have the life of Reilly.

 


the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
chris123 Flag hove actually 05 Apr 15 8.53pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 9.01pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
chris123 Flag hove actually 05 Apr 15 9.11pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.

A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 9.18pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.

A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.


So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
chris123 Flag hove actually 05 Apr 15 9.31pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.

A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.


So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.


How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 9.35pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.

A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.


So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.


How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.


Is not having the means to provide for a child also neglect?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
chris123 Flag hove actually 05 Apr 15 9.44pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.35pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.

A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.


So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.


How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.


Is not having the means to provide for a child also neglect?

Of course it is - child benefit is £20 a week, however low your money in is, not feeding your children is neglect - I'm astonished you need this explaining to you.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 10.09pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.44pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.35pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.

A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.


So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.


How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.


Is not having the means to provide for a child also neglect?

Of course it is - child benefit is £20 a week, however low your money in is, not feeding your children is neglect - I'm astonished you need this explaining to you.

Deliberately not feeding your child is neglect. Many people forsake eating themselves in order for their kids to eat, however there are some people so hard up that they can't manage even that.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
chris123 Flag hove actually 06 Apr 15 12.03pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 10.09pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.44pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.35pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm

Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm

Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.

Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.


This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.


Really? Do you think people do this deliberately?
As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes.
Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.


Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.


I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect?
People are too quick to judge.

I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.


And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?


You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.

The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.

A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.


So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.


How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.


Is not having the means to provide for a child also neglect?

Of course it is - child benefit is £20 a week, however low your money in is, not feeding your children is neglect - I'm astonished you need this explaining to you.

Deliberately not feeding your child is neglect. Many people forsake eating themselves in order for their kids to eat, however there are some people so hard up that they can't manage even that.


And what do these hard up people spend money on in preference to providing for their child's basic needs? Not feeding a child is neglect, deliberate or otherwise.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 2 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Victorian poverty